Resisting Global Toxics (Part 2)

The second part of the book highlights the various NGOs around the world that take part in fighting environmental injustice in various ways. I found it comforting to know that there are such groups in my own country but the funny thing is I don't hear much about them in the media - as in newspaper. And it's not because I don't read the newspapers back home...in fact, I read them religiously. But I think I remember hearing about the incinerator proposal plan for the place in Semenyih in my home state of Selangor. Semenyih is about 40-45 minutes from where I live and although its not as big as my town, it is a good-sized town. It is good to know that the plant proposal did not go through and that such news is actually heard in the international community inspite of not being covered much locally.

I think Malaysia has the potential in being a country that strongly advocates environmentalism and environmental justice in the South East Asia region. But until then, I think we still have a lot to learn especially from our neighbour countries such as the Philippines. After reading about some of the stories of environmental justice advocacy going on in the Philippines, I am encouraged to see the amount of progress going on in their country.

The case-study in the book regarding Haiti was interesting but at the same time, disturbing. It was bad enough that the ship dumped the waste onto the beach and said that it was non-hazardous but what was disturbing was the fact that the parties involved dragged their feet in cleaning up the waste. It took them more than 10 years!! I was surprised that it was not a huge international controversy/scandal as it should've been. And the mayor of the city of Philadelphia at that time who was Al Gore, did not do much about it...unless I misread something. So he was/is an advocate of environmentalism (ie. global warming etc.) but he is not an advocate for environmental justice?

I guess this is where the disconnect comes between environmentalists and environmental justice advocates. Maybe...maybe he couldn't get the grant but he personally felt compelled to do something but he couldn't just make the decision although he was in that position of power. After reading that little excerpt, I supposed it tarnished my image of Al Gore and that added even more to the fact that I was already a slight skeptic in the first place. I've always wondered what was his motivation in doing what he is currently doing. Hmm...

I think my posts are going to be more political because that's what people are talking about these days. By the way, has anyone watched "An inconvenient truth"? What did you think about it?

Resisting Global Toxics (Part 1)

As I read the 2 beginning chapters of the book, it reminded me of another class I took last semester which was Environmental Politics and Policy. One of the key concepts we discussed in that class was regarding how society has changed from pre-modern, to modern and to finally post modern. I liked how post-modern society is framed as a risk society. I don't think very many people will immediately view society today as one that exposes themselves to constant risk. But I think it is a very true statement because science has brought about so many innovations but at the same time, we have exposed ourselves to risks that we do not know of, especially in the long run. The anti-thesis of the risk society would be that of a society that follows the precautionary principle - which is to avoid even doing something if we're not even sure of the risks that might come out of it.

I do not neccessary like the idea that we are living in a risk society but I feel in terms of some of the benefits that we currently have, it would be better than just following the precautionary principle. This is because I feel like the precautionary principle is another extreme end of the spectrum. If we stop doing things just because there could be inherent risk attached to it; I can think of some (probably silly) examples. Take for example, if we followed the precautionary principle, we as mankind will fail to learn new things in comparision to what we now know. Imagine when man first discovered fire. If he chose to stay far away from it because of the fear of burning himself or the place that he lived, we wouldn't be here today. Like I said, it's a sort of silly example but you get the idea.

I also liked the idea of toxic colonialism as compared to regular colonialism. I mean, it makes sense because "western" developed countries are dumping their garbage in poor under-developed countries. I guess things never really changed over time which was what I didn't expect. I mean, to know that things are still the same is quite sad. Powerful governments and corporations will always seek the path of least resistance and the idea of the corporatization of governments was something I never came across until I read the first chapter. It is strange to see how governments today are run like businesses - which will eventually promote self-interest but I hope it doesn't go as far as that on a large scale because then, governments will be pointless.

I guess I'm also excited to see the results of the upcoming elections. I think it will make a big difference to who gets elected into office. I did a research paper on the energy and environmental policies of both candidates for my other class and as far as I can tell, I prefer Obama's policies because it would make a larger desirable impact compared to McCain's.

But we'll see who wins...

International Environmental Justice

The two chapters, 7 and 8 were really interesting because they each were connected to the other. The study about colonias was rather interesting because people were still living in such an area where there is no proper waste disposal systems, water or paved roads but some of them earned pretty good incomes.

From what I read in the chapter, I can think of another reason as to why people of color tend to be at the receiving end of environmental injustice; probably because of their communal type of living. These people chose to live in the are because other people of the same ethnicity live in the same area and share the same culture. It is more comforting if one is able to have some sort of connection with people of the same background if one is living in the foreign country and may have been discriminated against.

Another interesting thing I found in this study was something that has been mentioned over and over again but is much more prominent now after I read an actual study. That is that concern regarding environmental justice and environmentalism increases with education and that women tend to care more about such things. So of all the ideas that we've been discussing in class, I would say that one of the most effective ways to get people to care and act is to educate them and it does not necessarily mean educating them specifically about environmental issues.

Chapter 8 talked about EJ in Neoliberal free-trade agreements and how in some sense, they're not really free trade after all. The argument most used in such arguments is that the deterioration of the environment is necessary in developing countries before they are able to improve environmental conditions. This is because once the per capita income of the country reaches a certain level, people have most of their physical needs met and would then be more concerned about caring for their environment.

However, in order for developing countries to grow economically, they need to trade with developed countries or have develop countries build industries in their countries as operating costs are cheaper. But when this is done, developing countries oftentimes lose the "privilege" of demanding for better work conditions or ethics at their workplace. They have inadverdently "sold their soul" to large multinational corporations.

This results in such corporations taking advantage of trade agreements or poor government enforcement of regulations in order to maximize profit. What this will eventually lead to is increased pollution and sweat shop-like conditions for workers. When the locals rally and protest against such practices(like what happened in Guadalcazar), they might get their way but not without costs associated with such actions. If the riot or protest is large enough to generate international media interest, it might be a bad move for the local economy as other corporations might close down their current facilities or choose to locate them elsewhere.

This will leave such developed countries no better off than they were before. So it seems that there is a problem with such "free trade agreements". It will be difficult...maybe seemingly impossible to have regulated trade that provided fair compensation in exchange for labor or services because the argument then would be that everything would be restricted and the economy will be artificially manipulated. But current trade conditions are no better for developing countries. How then will we come up with a solution to provide fair compensation for services while at the same time, maintain an economic marketplace that is not overtly controlled (or regulated)?

Integration?

After reading the 5th and 6th essays in the book, I'm beginning to get the idea that alliances between environmentalists and EJ advocates are possible but does not occur all of the time. Chapter 5 talked about how there were so many waste sites disproportionately placed in the poorer neighborhoods of Massachusetts and that how locals and other organizations got together to promote and educate the public regarding EJ issues.

This time, instead of just getting the involvement and commitment of NGOs, they actually got government officials to get involved in the process as well. The ELM worked with MEJAC (which has government influence) and other such organizations to push for environmentally just policies to protect its citizens. In addition to that, realizing that EJ issues not only pervade the place where people live but also affects their work environment.

The coalition Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow worked to provide safer conditions for workers who are constantly exposed to chemicals such as janitors. They worked by trying to replace toxic chemicals with safer alternatives as minorities are usually the ones that hold jobs with higher risks attached to them for little compensation.

I guess this chapter shows that co-operation between NGOs and government agencies can be possible but only if there is a same level of activism in both parties. This alliance will not work out if one is more complacent than the other because it takes two to make things work...from the people and the government taking action to meet the needs of these people.

Chapter 6 on the other hand showed how environmentalism failed to meet the needs of EJ in the case of asbestos pollution in Libby, Montana. Over many years, its residents and others in the country was exposed continually to tremolite asbestos in the insulation product, Zonolite. As a result, many of the residents of Libby eventually died of lung related disorders.

The corporation who owned the mines were responsible for the pollution that took place because they knew that their workers were getting sick from the asbestos. In addition to that, even government inspectors knew about the issue but failed to take any action in shutting down the mine operations immediately. When they actually took action against the corporation, it filed for bankruptcy which left a lot of claims unsettled. This example of Libby and asbestos showed how the government failed to side its citizens on EJ issues. It also shows that while this case was going on, no environmental groups approached the townsfolk of Libby to help take their case on.

In this instance, it shows how environmentalism and EJ fail to connect or collaborate with each other. However, there is ground for environmentalists to fight for the citizens of Libby because the asbestos dust was continuously dispersed into the air which caused air pollution. In addition to that, asbestos dust was expelled into the air when the World Trade Centers collapsed which probably caused a wider spread effect compared to the relatively isolated incident in Libby.

As mentioned earlier, collaboration between environmentalists and EJ activists is possible but it will take a lot of working together with not only each other but also with the government. And instead of focusing solely on the issues that they face, they should also look for possible outcomes that may affect each other. Like the use of Zonolite is hazardous to not just the townsfolk of Libby but also to thousands of people who used Zonolite in their houses unknowingly.